> Claudius Denk sbcglobal.net> wrote innews:4d6910f4-738c-4bca-bf6a-91c8b55ed265@w5g2000prd.googlegroups.com:
>

>> If the effect (and/or "net" effect) of CO2 on longwave radiative
>> transfer through the Earth's atmosphere cannot be simulated correctly
>> in a realistic laboratory experiment then how do you know it exists?
>> Are there nonlaboratory methods that allow us to substantiate the
>> existence of this effect or are they, as I suspect, assumed into
>> existence?  If so then what are these nonlaboratory methods?
>> (References?)  And, again, if they are, as I suspect, assumed into
>> existence then why could one not do the same for N2 and O2?  (Did you
>> think I wouldn't notice you tried to evade this question?)

>
> c-babe:
>
> I provided or someone in this thread with a reference showing where
> people had measured the change in outgoing longwave IR radiation at the
> top of the atmosphere over the time period 1970 (I think) to today (or
> thereabouts).  The change in IR radiation was in complete agreement with
> what one would expect based on CO2 and CH4 absorbing longwave IR
> radiation.  I apologize if the importance of that result slid on by you,
> but you're used to that I imagine so you probably took it right in
> stride.  However, just because you choose to remain uninformed doesn't
> make the result any less true.  So, yes, it is virtually impossible to
> simulate a realistic planetary atmosphere on laboratory scales.  But that
> doesn't mean there are no direct empirical measurements demonstrating the
> radiative effect of CO2.  
>
> Finally, if you asked questions that made sense, even a teensy little bit
> of sense, they would get answered more.  
>
> --
> Bill Asher